Liberals Aren’t Liking This Newly-Discovered Photo Of The 1924 Democratic Convention…

[Ame®icano]

You actually think the party shift of the South happened at 12:43 on a Tuesday the 11th of July in 19xx?

Time doesn't work that way. When Thurmond jumped in the fall of 1964, he was doing what had been for 99 years unthinkable in the South. That took time to crack; tradition runs deep -- some were more bold than others. Thurmond had the temerity to do it because his base was so strong --- he had already won his Senate seat as a write-in after the state Democratic Party had dumped him off the ballot, so he knew party affiliation was, in his position, irrelevant. First and so far only person ever elected to the Senate as a write-in.

In other words he was so entrenched that he could do the unthinkable as a protest parting shot against LBJ's CRA that he couldn't stop that summer. LBJ had mused that the CRA would cost his party the Solid South, and Thurmond was taking steps to make that happen.

Hell, Zell Miller and Billy Graham are still Democrats to this day. It's part of a deep tradition and the South is nothing if not traditional.

Conservatism and nazism share the same core belief that their ideology is a panacea which should prevail above all others. In their respective [and diseased] minds, their ideology can do no wrong when practiced in its purist form.

By the way, national socialism (Nazism) and nationalism are not the same same thing. On the other side, national socialism is socialism. l.

LOL- National Socialism was very specifically a Nationalist movement.

On the other hand- the Nazi's were not socialists.

You keep pointing to "nationalist" while I am pointing to "socialist".

One of them is not necessarily bad, guess which one.

Well since the Nazi's were the party of rabid Nationalism.....hmmmm

Hell the Nazi's were very successful Nationalists- stirring up Nationalist sentiment against everyone who wasn't 'Aryan'- but were terrible socialists- since corporations and industrial tycoons got filthy rich- and the Nazi's jailed both socialists and communists....

Pulling it out of your ass doesn't make it true.

 

[Ame®icano]

You actually think the party shift of the South happened at 12:43 on a Tuesday the 11th of July in 19xx?

Time doesn't work that way. When Thurmond jumped in the fall of 1964, he was doing what had been for 99 years unthinkable in the South. That took time to crack; tradition runs deep -- some were more bold than others. Thurmond had the temerity to do it because his base was so strong --- he had already won his Senate seat as a write-in after the state Democratic Party had dumped him off the ballot, so he knew party affiliation was, in his position, irrelevant. First and so far only person ever elected to the Senate as a write-in.

In other words he was so entrenched that he could do the unthinkable as a protest parting shot against LBJ's CRA that he couldn't stop that summer. LBJ had mused that the CRA would cost his party the Solid South, and Thurmond was taking steps to make that happen.

Hell, Zell Miller and Billy Graham are still Democrats to this day. It's part of a deep tradition and the South is nothing if not traditional.

Conservatism and nazism share the same core belief that their ideology is a panacea which should prevail above all others. In their respective [and diseased] minds, their ideology can do no wrong when practiced in its purist form.

By the way, national socialism (Nazism) and nationalism are not the same same thing. On the other side, national socialism is socialism. l.

LOL- National Socialism was very specifically a Nationalist movement.

On the other hand- the Nazi's were not socialists.

You keep pointing to "nationalist" while I am pointing to "socialist".

One of them is not necessarily bad, guess which one.

Do you ever wonder how someone can say something so stupid and still survive the day?

You do know the where name "Nazi" came from? Let me help you: NSDAP (Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei). Name itself speaks for itself.

If breading and reading is not to much of the trouble for you, I suggest you to read Nazi party platform, for start, and if you somehow get thru it, switch to Strasser, and his writings. You could find Hitler's speaches too, and if you listen carefully, he sounds a lot like today's modern progressive left, without "national" part.

Let me guess, someone told you that Nazi's were far right, and you believe in that too.

The Nazi's were both far right- and far left.

But they were always Nationalists.

Let me guess, someone told you that Nazi's were socialists, and you believe in that too.

Nope, Nazi were on the left. By name, by platform, by ideology, you name it.

Only reason you're wishing they were on the right is so you lefties can compare them and equate them with todays right. Compare Nazi platform with Progressive left platform and you may notice that you are the same. At least, decades ago you were hiding behind the name "liberal", now you're proudly waving hammer and sickle flags, wearing Che shirts and openly calling for communism.

Again, Nazis were socialists, the left side on political spectrum, just bit less left than communists.

 

[Pogo]

Wow, look at all those white conservatives. Glad they became Republicans.

Name five who did so.

I'll help you with first one, you fill the blanks. Can you?

1. Strom Thurmond
2.
3.
4.
5.

Thanks but it won't even register.

Actually I've already named more than five without seeing this post. And yes, it didn't register.

Nice pun btw --- "register". I get it. Haw haw.

Names.

Yup. First and last. Just yesterday.
Need their shoe sizes too?

Fatter o' mact I posted elsewhere about one of them in an unrelated story, about how the Bush (I) White House encouraged Buddy Roemer to switch as a hedge against David Duke. That's two of them right there.

That was back when a POTUS had the balls to disown a tarnished pol who threatened to sully the party's image. You know, unlike today.

Imagine, having a POTUS whose balls can't measure up to President Wimp.

 

[Ame®icano]

Wow, look at all those white conservatives. Glad they became Republicans.

Name five who did so.

I'll help you with first one, you fill the blanks. Can you?

1. Strom Thurmond
2.
3.
4.
5.

Thanks but it won't even register.

Actually I've already named more than five without seeing this post. And yes, it didn't register.

Nice pun btw --- "register". I get it. Haw haw.

Names.

Yup. First and last. Just yesterday.
Need their shoe sizes too?

Fatter o' mact I posted elsewhere about one of them in an unrelated story, about how the Bush (I) White House encouraged Buddy Roemer to switch as a hedge against David Duke. That's two of them right there.

That was back when a POTUS had the balls to disown a tarnished pol who threatened to sully the party's image. You know, unlike today.

Imagine, having a POTUS whose balls can't measure up to President Wimp.

You're dodging, soooo...elsewhere doesn't count, bud.

You'd think I'm following every post around just to see if Pogo answered the question.

Nope, I asked the question here, if you're already replying, why don;t you answer here?

 

[Pogo]

Name five who did so.

I'll help you with first one, you fill the blanks. Can you?

1. Strom Thurmond
2.
3.
4.
5.

Thanks but it won't even register.

Actually I've already named more than five without seeing this post. And yes, it didn't register.

Nice pun btw --- "register". I get it. Haw haw.

Names.

Yup. First and last. Just yesterday.
Need their shoe sizes too?

Fatter o' mact I posted elsewhere about one of them in an unrelated story, about how the Bush (I) White House encouraged Buddy Roemer to switch as a hedge against David Duke. That's two of them right there.

That was back when a POTUS had the balls to disown a tarnished pol who threatened to sully the party's image. You know, unlike today.

Imagine, having a POTUS whose balls can't measure up to President Wimp.

You're dodging, soooo...elsewhere doesn't count, bud.

You'd think I'm following every post around just to see if Pogo answered the question.

Nope, I asked the question here, if you're already replying, why don;t you answer here?

You went all the way back to post one from months ago, yet you can't wend back one day?

Wassamatta Peewee? Afraid of what you might find?

 

[Ame®icano]

Thanks but it won't even register.

Actually I've already named more than five without seeing this post. And yes, it didn't register.

Nice pun btw --- "register". I get it. Haw haw.

Names.

Yup. First and last. Just yesterday.
Need their shoe sizes too?

Fatter o' mact I posted elsewhere about one of them in an unrelated story, about how the Bush (I) White House encouraged Buddy Roemer to switch as a hedge against David Duke. That's two of them right there.

That was back when a POTUS had the balls to disown a tarnished pol who threatened to sully the party's image. You know, unlike today.

Imagine, having a POTUS whose balls can't measure up to President Wimp.

You're dodging, soooo...elsewhere doesn't count, bud.

You'd think I'm following every post around just to see if Pogo answered the question.

Nope, I asked the question here, if you're already replying, why don;t you answer here?

You went all the way back to post one from months ago, yet you can't wend back one day?

Wassamatta Peewee? Afraid of what you might find?

No soyboy, I replied to posts that were marked "new" to me.

Why is the problem to fill the blanks on the list?

Names.

 

[Pogo]

Actually I've already named more than five without seeing this post. And yes, it didn't register.

Nice pun btw --- "register". I get it. Haw haw.

Names.

Yup. First and last. Just yesterday.
Need their shoe sizes too?

Fatter o' mact I posted elsewhere about one of them in an unrelated story, about how the Bush (I) White House encouraged Buddy Roemer to switch as a hedge against David Duke. That's two of them right there.

That was back when a POTUS had the balls to disown a tarnished pol who threatened to sully the party's image. You know, unlike today.

Imagine, having a POTUS whose balls can't measure up to President Wimp.

You're dodging, soooo...elsewhere doesn't count, bud.

You'd think I'm following every post around just to see if Pogo answered the question.

Nope, I asked the question here, if you're already replying, why don;t you answer here?

You went all the way back to post one from months ago, yet you can't wend back one day?

Wassamatta Peewee? Afraid of what you might find?

No soyboy, I replied to posts that were marked "new" to me.

Why is the problem to fill the blanks on the list?

Names.

Fetch.

 

[Ame®icano]

Names.

Yup. First and last. Just yesterday.
Need their shoe sizes too?

Fatter o' mact I posted elsewhere about one of them in an unrelated story, about how the Bush (I) White House encouraged Buddy Roemer to switch as a hedge against David Duke. That's two of them right there.

That was back when a POTUS had the balls to disown a tarnished pol who threatened to sully the party's image. You know, unlike today.

Imagine, having a POTUS whose balls can't measure up to President Wimp.

You're dodging, soooo...elsewhere doesn't count, bud.

You'd think I'm following every post around just to see if Pogo answered the question.

Nope, I asked the question here, if you're already replying, why don;t you answer here?

You went all the way back to post one from months ago, yet you can't wend back one day?

Wassamatta Peewee? Afraid of what you might find?

No soyboy, I replied to posts that were marked "new" to me.

Why is the problem to fill the blanks on the list?

Names.

Fetch.

That's what I thought.

 

[Pogo]

Conservatism and nazism share the same core belief that their ideology is a panacea which should prevail above all others. In their respective [and diseased] minds, their ideology can do no wrong when practiced in its purist form.

By the way, national socialism (Nazism) and nationalism are not the same same thing. On the other side, national socialism is socialism. l.

LOL- National Socialism was very specifically a Nationalist movement.

On the other hand- the Nazi's were not socialists.

You keep pointing to "nationalist" while I am pointing to "socialist".

One of them is not necessarily bad, guess which one.

Do you ever wonder how someone can say something so stupid and still survive the day?

You do know the where name "Nazi" came from? Let me help you: NSDAP (Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei). Name itself speaks for itself.

If breading and reading is not to much of the trouble for you, I suggest you to read Nazi party platform, for start, and if you somehow get thru it, switch to Strasser, and his writings. You could find Hitler's speaches too, and if you listen carefully, he sounds a lot like today's modern progressive left, without "national" part.

Let me guess, someone told you that Nazi's were far right, and you believe in that too.

The Nazi's were both far right- and far left.

But they were always Nationalists.

Let me guess, someone told you that Nazi's were socialists, and you believe in that too.

Nope, Nazi were on the left. By name, by platform, by ideology, you name it.

Only reason you're wishing they were on the right is so you lefties can compare them and equate them with todays right. Compare Nazi platform with Progressive left platform and you may notice that you are the same. At least, decades ago you were hiding behind the name "liberal", now you're proudly waving hammer and sickle flags, wearing Che shirts and openly calling for communism.

Again, Nazis were socialists, the left side on political spectrum, just bit less left from communists.

Pathetic, dood. Nazis vehemently opposed both communists and socialists. Beat them up and then locked them up. Pure authoritarianism.

/way offtopic

 

[Ame®icano]

By the way, national socialism (Nazism) and nationalism are not the same same thing. On the other side, national socialism is socialism. l.

LOL- National Socialism was very specifically a Nationalist movement.

On the other hand- the Nazi's were not socialists.

You keep pointing to "nationalist" while I am pointing to "socialist".

One of them is not necessarily bad, guess which one.

Do you ever wonder how someone can say something so stupid and still survive the day?

You do know the where name "Nazi" came from? Let me help you: NSDAP (Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei). Name itself speaks for itself.

If breading and reading is not to much of the trouble for you, I suggest you to read Nazi party platform, for start, and if you somehow get thru it, switch to Strasser, and his writings. You could find Hitler's speaches too, and if you listen carefully, he sounds a lot like today's modern progressive left, without "national" part.

Let me guess, someone told you that Nazi's were far right, and you believe in that too.

The Nazi's were both far right- and far left.

But they were always Nationalists.

Let me guess, someone told you that Nazi's were socialists, and you believe in that too.

Nope, Nazi were on the left. By name, by platform, by ideology, you name it.

Only reason you're wishing they were on the right is so you lefties can compare them and equate them with todays right. Compare Nazi platform with Progressive left platform and you may notice that you are the same. At least, decades ago you were hiding behind the name "liberal", now you're proudly waving hammer and sickle flags, wearing Che shirts and openly calling for communism.

Again, Nazis were socialists, the left side on political spectrum, just bit less left from communists.

Pathetic, dood. Nazis vehemently opposed both communists and socialists. Beat them up and then locked them up. Pure authoritarianism.

/way offtopic

Let's go back to those names... four more.

 

[Pogo]

LOL- National Socialism was very specifically a Nationalist movement.

On the other hand- the Nazi's were not socialists.

You keep pointing to "nationalist" while I am pointing to "socialist".

One of them is not necessarily bad, guess which one.

Do you ever wonder how someone can say something so stupid and still survive the day?

You do know the where name "Nazi" came from? Let me help you: NSDAP (Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei). Name itself speaks for itself.

If breading and reading is not to much of the trouble for you, I suggest you to read Nazi party platform, for start, and if you somehow get thru it, switch to Strasser, and his writings. You could find Hitler's speaches too, and if you listen carefully, he sounds a lot like today's modern progressive left, without "national" part.

Let me guess, someone told you that Nazi's were far right, and you believe in that too.

The Nazi's were both far right- and far left.

But they were always Nationalists.

Let me guess, someone told you that Nazi's were socialists, and you believe in that too.

Nope, Nazi were on the left. By name, by platform, by ideology, you name it.

Only reason you're wishing they were on the right is so you lefties can compare them and equate them with todays right. Compare Nazi platform with Progressive left platform and you may notice that you are the same. At least, decades ago you were hiding behind the name "liberal", now you're proudly waving hammer and sickle flags, wearing Che shirts and openly calling for communism.

Again, Nazis were socialists, the left side on political spectrum, just bit less left from communists.

Pathetic, dood. Nazis vehemently opposed both communists and socialists. Beat them up and then locked them up. Pure authoritarianism.

/way offtopic

Let's go back to those names... four more.

.
Haha your Googly Image spelled "wanking" wrong.

Wank on this, lazy-ass fuck. Same fucking names I gave you yesterday while you play Pee Wee Herman games. Fuck you.

 

[Syriusly]

Conservatism and nazism share the same core belief that their ideology is a panacea which should prevail above all others. In their respective [and diseased] minds, their ideology can do no wrong when practiced in its purist form.

By the way, national socialism (Nazism) and nationalism are not the same same thing. On the other side, national socialism is socialism. l.

LOL- National Socialism was very specifically a Nationalist movement.

On the other hand- the Nazi's were not socialists.

You keep pointing to "nationalist" while I am pointing to "socialist".

One of them is not necessarily bad, guess which one.

Do you ever wonder how someone can say something so stupid and still survive the day?

You do know the where name "Nazi" came from? Let me help you: NSDAP (Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei). Name itself speaks for itself.

If breading and reading is not to much of the trouble for you, I suggest you to read Nazi party platform, for start, and if you somehow get thru it, switch to Strasser, and his writings. You could find Hitler's speaches too, and if you listen carefully, he sounds a lot like today's modern progressive left, without "national" part.

Let me guess, someone told you that Nazi's were far right, and you believe in that too.

The Nazi's were both far right- and far left.

But they were always Nationalists.

Let me guess, someone told you that Nazi's were socialists, and you believe in that too.

Nope, Nazi were on the left. By name, by platform, by ideology, you name it.s.

The Nazi's were both far right- and far left.

But they were always Nationalists.

Let me guess, someone told you that Nazi's were socialists, and you believe in that too.

Even as they marched Socialists off to the gas chambers.

 

[Freewill]

Wow, look at all those white conservatives. Glad they became Republicans.

Name five who did so.

I'll help you with first one, you fill the blanks. Can you?

1. Strom Thurmond
2.
3.
4.
5.

Sure .... all of the conservative southerners who flipped the south from Democrat...

... to Republican ...

The problem with your BS is that there is no causality. Just because the south turned red doesn't mean it was caused by racism. Using you illogic every state that is red is racist, we know that isn't true. There was no reason to support the Republican party because of racism. The Republican party won the Civil war, supported ALL of the civil rights acts. Did not start the KKK, or the Jim Crow laws. There was absolutely nothing to lead a racist to the Republican party, but states rights, that is another issue.

 

[Faun]

Wow, look at all those white conservatives. Glad they became Republicans.

Name five who did so.

I'll help you with first one, you fill the blanks. Can you?

1. Strom Thurmond
2.
3.
4.
5.

Sure .... all of the conservative southerners who flipped the south from Democrat...

... to Republican ...

The problem with your BS is that there is no causality. Just because the south turned red doesn't mean it was caused by racism. Using you illogic every state that is red is racist, we know that isn't true. There was no reason to support the Republican party because of racism. The Republican party won the Civil war, supported ALL of the civil rights acts. Did not start the KKK, or the Jim Crow laws. There was absolutely nothing to lead a racist to the Republican party, but states rights, that is another issue.

The south has always been more racist than the north. The south has always been more conservative than the north and more religious than the north. At one time, the south was also more Democrat than Republican. Ideologies don’t shift much. Religions don’t shift much. But political parties do. And the south which was once firmly Democrat, is now mostly Republican. Still more conservative... still more religious... and still more racist.

 

[Ame®icano]

Wow, look at all those white conservatives. Glad they became Republicans.

Name five who did so.

I'll help you with first one, you fill the blanks. Can you?

1. Strom Thurmond
2.
3.
4.
5.

Sure .... all of the conservative southerners who flipped the south from Democrat...

... to Republican ...

The problem with your BS is that there is no causality. Just because the south turned red doesn't mean it was caused by racism. Using you illogic every state that is red is racist, we know that isn't true. There was no reason to support the Republican party because of racism. The Republican party won the Civil war, supported ALL of the civil rights acts. Did not start the KKK, or the Jim Crow laws. There was absolutely nothing to lead a racist to the Republican party, but states rights, that is another issue.

The south has always been more racist than the north. The south has always been more conservative than the north and more religious than the north. At one time, the south was also more Democrat than Republican. Ideologies don’t shift much. Religions don’t shift much. But political parties do. And the south which was once firmly Democrat, is now mostly Republican. Still more conservative... still more religious... and still more racist.

You're probably right, the southern states used to be more racist, when Democrats were in power.

The most racist states today are those where Democrats still have power.

 

[Faun]

Wow, look at all those white conservatives. Glad they became Republicans.

Name five who did so.

I'll help you with first one, you fill the blanks. Can you?

1. Strom Thurmond
2.
3.
4.
5.

Sure .... all of the conservative southerners who flipped the south from Democrat...

... to Republican ...

The problem with your BS is that there is no causality. Just because the south turned red doesn't mean it was caused by racism. Using you illogic every state that is red is racist, we know that isn't true. There was no reason to support the Republican party because of racism. The Republican party won the Civil war, supported ALL of the civil rights acts. Did not start the KKK, or the Jim Crow laws. There was absolutely nothing to lead a racist to the Republican party, but states rights, that is another issue.

The south has always been more racist than the north. The south has always been more conservative than the north and more religious than the north. At one time, the south was also more Democrat than Republican. Ideologies don’t shift much. Religions don’t shift much. But political parties do. And the south which was once firmly Democrat, is now mostly Republican. Still more conservative... still more religious... and still more racist.

The most racist states today are those where Democrats still have power.

 

[Freewill]

Wow, look at all those white conservatives. Glad they became Republicans.

Name five who did so.

I'll help you with first one, you fill the blanks. Can you?

1. Strom Thurmond
2.
3.
4.
5.

Sure .... all of the conservative southerners who flipped the south from Democrat...

... to Republican ...

The problem with your BS is that there is no causality. Just because the south turned red doesn't mean it was caused by racism. Using you illogic every state that is red is racist, we know that isn't true. There was no reason to support the Republican party because of racism. The Republican party won the Civil war, supported ALL of the civil rights acts. Did not start the KKK, or the Jim Crow laws. There was absolutely nothing to lead a racist to the Republican party, but states rights, that is another issue.

The south has always been more racist than the north. The south has always been more conservative than the north and more religious than the north. At one time, the south was also more Democrat than Republican. Ideologies don’t shift much. Religions don’t shift much. But political parties do. And the south which was once firmly Democrat, is now mostly Republican. Still more conservative... still more religious... and still more racist.

You're probably right, the southern states used to be more racist, when Democrats were in power.

The most racist states today are those where Democrats still have power.

Everything ever done in the south that was racist was done be democrats. As I pointed out, Slavery, Jim Crow, the KKK, Standing in the school house door shouting segregation today and forever(took a Republican to stop that racism). You are trying to prove causality without proof. Even if the south as a whole is more racist than the north that does not mean that the Republican party is racist. That is foolishness to assume such.

Instead of painting the picture you want, look at the record of the democrat party and that of the republican party, no comparison the democrats proved by their actions that they are truly the party of racism. The republicans, by action, proved themselves to be the opposite.

 

[Ame®icano]

Name five who did so.

I'll help you with first one, you fill the blanks. Can you?

1. Strom Thurmond
2.
3.
4.
5.

Sure .... all of the conservative southerners who flipped the south from Democrat...

... to Republican ...

The problem with your BS is that there is no causality. Just because the south turned red doesn't mean it was caused by racism. Using you illogic every state that is red is racist, we know that isn't true. There was no reason to support the Republican party because of racism. The Republican party won the Civil war, supported ALL of the civil rights acts. Did not start the KKK, or the Jim Crow laws. There was absolutely nothing to lead a racist to the Republican party, but states rights, that is another issue.

The south has always been more racist than the north. The south has always been more conservative than the north and more religious than the north. At one time, the south was also more Democrat than Republican. Ideologies don’t shift much. Religions don’t shift much. But political parties do. And the south which was once firmly Democrat, is now mostly Republican. Still more conservative... still more religious... and still more racist.

The most racist states today are those where Democrats still have power.

Is that the best answer you could provide? Rather, can you prove they're not?

Homework for you, Kenneth Stampp's - The Peculiar Institution

If you go today to any Democrat controlled inner city, and we're talking about two dozens of cities completely dominated by Democrats for decades, you find in them today all the features of slave plantations that Stampp outlined in his classic work. When you finish reading, return here to debate me.

 

[Ame®icano]

Name five who did so.

I'll help you with first one, you fill the blanks. Can you?

1. Strom Thurmond
2.
3.
4.
5.

Sure .... all of the conservative southerners who flipped the south from Democrat...

... to Republican ...

The problem with your BS is that there is no causality. Just because the south turned red doesn't mean it was caused by racism. Using you illogic every state that is red is racist, we know that isn't true. There was no reason to support the Republican party because of racism. The Republican party won the Civil war, supported ALL of the civil rights acts. Did not start the KKK, or the Jim Crow laws. There was absolutely nothing to lead a racist to the Republican party, but states rights, that is another issue.

The south has always been more racist than the north. The south has always been more conservative than the north and more religious than the north. At one time, the south was also more Democrat than Republican. Ideologies don’t shift much. Religions don’t shift much. But political parties do. And the south which was once firmly Democrat, is now mostly Republican. Still more conservative... still more religious... and still more racist.

You're probably right, the southern states used to be more racist, when Democrats were in power.

The most racist states today are those where Democrats still have power.

Everything ever done in the south that was racist was done be democrats. As I pointed out, Slavery, Jim Crow, the KKK, Standing in the school house door shouting segregation today and forever(took a Republican to stop that racism). You are trying to prove causality without proof. Even if the south as a whole is more racist than the north that does not mean that the Republican party is racist. That is foolishness to assume such.

Instead of painting the picture you want, look at the record of the democrat party and that of the republican party, no comparison the democrats proved by their actions that they are truly the party of racism. The republicans, by action, proved themselves to be the opposite.

They're trying to prove many things not by providing proofs, but by lying and rewriting history. How possibly we can blame Democrats today for what Democrats did 150 years ago under slavery, or 100 years ago under segregation, or 70 years ago under KKK, 60 years ago under lynching, or 50 years ago for voting against civil rights act, why do we blame them for all that? Democrats have changed, right?

I'll believe they have changed once they admit and apologize for all they did. Until then, they will always remain party of slavery, party of segregation, party of Jim Crow laws, party of KKK, party of lynching, party of poll taxes, party of forced sterilization, etc.

They will not admit or apologize! They called Robert Byrd a "conscience of the Senate" until he died in 2010. We're not talking about Democrat from before 50 years ago, but before just seven years ago. Hillary Clinton called him her mentor, her husband Bill and President Barry went to the funeral. Remember what Bubba said at the funeral?

 

[Faun]

Name five who did so.

I'll help you with first one, you fill the blanks. Can you?

1. Strom Thurmond
2.
3.
4.
5.

Sure .... all of the conservative southerners who flipped the south from Democrat...

... to Republican ...

The problem with your BS is that there is no causality. Just because the south turned red doesn't mean it was caused by racism. Using you illogic every state that is red is racist, we know that isn't true. There was no reason to support the Republican party because of racism. The Republican party won the Civil war, supported ALL of the civil rights acts. Did not start the KKK, or the Jim Crow laws. There was absolutely nothing to lead a racist to the Republican party, but states rights, that is another issue.

The south has always been more racist than the north. The south has always been more conservative than the north and more religious than the north. At one time, the south was also more Democrat than Republican. Ideologies don’t shift much. Religions don’t shift much. But political parties do. And the south which was once firmly Democrat, is now mostly Republican. Still more conservative... still more religious... and still more racist.

You're probably right, the southern states used to be more racist, when Democrats were in power.

The most racist states today are those where Democrats still have power.

Everything ever done in the south that was racist was done be democrats. As I pointed out, Slavery, Jim Crow, the KKK, Standing in the school house door shouting segregation today and forever(took a Republican to stop that racism). You are trying to prove causality without proof. Even if the south as a whole is more racist than the north that does not mean that the Republican party is racist. That is foolishness to assume such.

Instead of painting the picture you want, look at the record of the democrat party and that of the republican party, no comparison the democrats proved by their actions that they are truly the party of racism. The republicans, by action, proved themselves to be the opposite.

And the conservative south is now Republican. Still conservative and still racist.